Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New Facebook tool allows employers to suppress “unionize” in workplace chat

theintercept.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 500 posts

Re: New Facebook tool allows employers to suppress “unionize” in workplace chat

#51

Post by Veen »

pjc50 wrote: post #29
hliyan wrote: post #8

Not on the topic of Facebook, but on employers who fear these trends so much that they want this level of control: Fundamental social shifts cannot be nipped in the bud. The best anyone can do is understand them and ensure the changes are gradual, rather than letting them build-up to a big bang. This is an oversimplification, but: early 20th century rise of communism was a violent backlash against the presiding monar…

> Dissatisfaction with growing wealth disparity at the time was a fundamental trend that could not have been "nipped in the bud". Well, this was the whole idea of "Fabian" socialism, named after Fabius the Delayer: bring in reforms now, otherwise revolution will happen outside your control. A big part of the foundation of the UK Labour party. It seems to me that the BLM movement is just such a "big bang" against a sl…

> It seems to me that the BLM movement is just such a "big bang" against a slow increase in racism

Over the last few decades, there has been rapid _decrease_ in racism throughout the West.

Re: New Facebook tool allows employers to suppress “unionize” in workplace chat

#52

Post by eunos »

BiteCode_dev wrote: post #27

Clearly, they don't play online games with a chat lobby. They would have quickly learned that such features is useless, as it's easily bypassed: - in novembre, we should cost them the electrons. Ionize! - It's time we u_nionize - un10n1z3 people ! - let's fetch the U:\N\I\O\N\I\Z\E file - all go to http://unio.ni/ze - so we should do the u-thingy - what about talking to Mr Ulysse Nionize - never too late to ｕｎᎥｏｎｉｚｅ…

Waiting for the western version of this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baidu_10_Mythical_Creatures

Re: New Facebook tool allows employers to suppress “unionize” in workplace chat

#53

Post by neuronic »

BiteCode_dev wrote: post #34
mattbillenstein wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've fought this feature in products for years - the product ppl always wanna ban bad words and I'm like - you can't, it literally never works, it just becomes a stupid arms race and it's not worth our time. I always lose this argument for some reason.

It's like the button at traffic lights that does nothing: it's not about actually working, it's about giving the user a feeling of control.

So it does something.

When you push it, the electrical signal goes from finger to brain, inducing a change, instead from button to traffic light.

Re: New Facebook tool allows employers to suppress “unionize” in workplace chat

#54

Post by michaelt »

wpietri wrote: post #39
objclxt wrote: post #25

I used to work at Facebook, and it was always interesting to me to see just how many engineers were actively against - aghast, even - at the idea of unions. Whenever it would come up on the internal boards the arguments were usually along the lines of: * "People who don't deserve to be paid more will get more money under a union" * "I'll be paid less under a union" * "Unions will slow us down, and we'll become more b…

There are certainly bad unions. But I think that often arises as a reaction to poisonous management behavior, a zero-sum mentality that treats workers as a cost center, not a value generator. It's a "fuck me, no fuck you" scenario. Your point about the Hollywood unions is a great one. Like tech, in Hollywood everybody has clear incentives to create a great final product. Positive-sum thinking usually part of the cult…

> The union is something the workers create and run. If they think a union they create would be bad, what are they saying about themselves?

They think a union would be a bit like a homeowners association - in principle owned and run by them and never acting against their interests, but in practice a threat as much as an opportunity.

Re: New Facebook tool allows employers to suppress “unionize” in workplace chat

#55

Post by rwmj »

objclxt wrote: post #25

I used to work at Facebook, and it was always interesting to me to see just how many engineers were actively against - aghast, even - at the idea of unions. Whenever it would come up on the internal boards the arguments were usually along the lines of: * "People who don't deserve to be paid more will get more money under a union" * "I'll be paid less under a union" * "Unions will slow us down, and we'll become more b…

I'm in a union, and when I mentioned it to my work colleagues at dinner one day there was a kind of open-mouthed aghast shock similar to if I'd announced that I was a visitor from Mars.

Anyway, while you don't really get the benefit of unionisation unless a large number of people join at a workplace, it's still possible to join some unions as an individual, and there are some lesser benefits like free legal and employment advice.

Re: New Facebook tool allows employers to suppress “unionize” in workplace chat

#56

Post by golemiprague »

docdeek wrote: post #11
ars wrote: post #6

Clickbait title. The tool allows banning any word. There's nothing special about unionize in the tool.

You're right on the capacity to ban/control discussion around any word. However it is probably notable that Facebook chose to highlight 'unionize' and not 'football' or 'American Idol' in their sales pitch.

True but I think it was a bit tongue in cheek which I like in companies, would you rather them writing there Trump? From some reason I don't thing there would be such reaction if that what they wrote

Re: New Facebook tool allows employers to suppress “unionize” in workplace chat

#57

Post by rwmj »

adwww wrote: post #45
pydry wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not much money and rich enemies will do that.

Here in the UK the union leaders manage to look like tits all on their own. I'd love to have a workable union system for tech workers here, but I just don't see what they offer unless you can persuade meaningful numbers of your coworkers to sign up.

While I don't disagree on your main points, I will mention that there is a UK union (Prospect) for tech workers which is not politically aligned and sensible. (Disclaimer: I'm a member)

Re: New Facebook tool allows employers to suppress “unionize” in workplace chat

#58

Post by pjc50 »

wpietri wrote: post #39
objclxt wrote: post #25

I used to work at Facebook, and it was always interesting to me to see just how many engineers were actively against - aghast, even - at the idea of unions. Whenever it would come up on the internal boards the arguments were usually along the lines of: * "People who don't deserve to be paid more will get more money under a union" * "I'll be paid less under a union" * "Unions will slow us down, and we'll become more b…

There are certainly bad unions. But I think that often arises as a reaction to poisonous management behavior, a zero-sum mentality that treats workers as a cost center, not a value generator. It's a "fuck me, no fuck you" scenario. Your point about the Hollywood unions is a great one. Like tech, in Hollywood everybody has clear incentives to create a great final product. Positive-sum thinking usually part of the cult…

Hollywood unions are a slightly special case: while the studios hold a huge amount of power, the staff are pretty much all contractors per-project, and the entity they're contracting with will be a special purpose corporate vehicle for that film. Most software doesn't look like that - except game development, which is notoriously abusive and can get away with it because of a fresh supply of enthusiastic young people.

Re: New Facebook tool allows employers to suppress “unionize” in workplace chat

#59

Post by erikpukinskis »

TakawaraJu wrote: post #16
IfOnlyYouKnew wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This tool is something that Facebook is trying to sell . To other companies . So you're missing the point with your superficial speculation as to the balance of power between Facebook and its employees. For that reason, I'll keep the rebuttal short: laws are still valid, as far as I know. And this tool is blatantly illegal. Facebook employees also don't typically face starvation if they can't find a new job right awa…

Whilst it may be distasteful, it is entirely legal. An employer cannot inhibit the formation or function of a union but are under no obligation to provide the facilities or platform to form one. What FB have done is akin to not allowing an organizer to use the company photocopier to print union leaflets

I think you’re wrong... It’s only legal if they prohibit all non-work discussions. So if they also block discussions about politics, sports, music, etc they can block talk about unions.

But they can’t target union talk specifically:

Companies may prohibit workers from talking about nonwork issues in work areas during work hours. ... In other words, a company can prohibit extraneous conversation, but may not prohibit only union discussions while allowing employees to talk about anything else they wish.

Source: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/shop-talk-rules-unio...

Re: New Facebook tool allows employers to suppress “unionize” in workplace chat

#60

Post by KaiserPro »

0xy wrote: post #44
objclxt wrote: post #25

I used to work at Facebook, and it was always interesting to me to see just how many engineers were actively against - aghast, even - at the idea of unions. Whenever it would come up on the internal boards the arguments were usually along the lines of: * "People who don't deserve to be paid more will get more money under a union" * "I'll be paid less under a union" * "Unions will slow us down, and we'll become more b…

What if the person to fight in my corner is me? Unions drag everyone's wages to an average. Poor performers get paid more, top performers get paid less. No thanks, I can negotiate for myself. Look at teachers and police unions for a prime example. Great police get paid the same as the police who racially profile. Great teachers get paid the same as the teachers who phone it in. Additionally unions protect incompetent…

ok, but hear me out on this:

how do you know you are earning as much as you should?

I mean if we take facebook as an example, you can't negotiate pay. You're slapped on a scale and thats it. You might be able to up your share offer, but actual pay is fixed on a scale.

Which is the same as what it would be if it was unionised.

Also, you have chosen two professions that are run by public organisations, so pay is always going to be low[1] However in other countries, teachers unions are very effective at settling compensation. (The UK for example has reasonably well paid teachers)

I think the problem is that you seem to be labouring under the pretence that you are special, and earn a specially high wage. Statistics say that in practice your probably earning close to median for tech. Make of that what you will...

[1] well yes and no, depending on country, but lets assume the USA

Post reply on HN